no it doesn't seem outrageous in the pref score, but then it is VERY expensive as a bookshelf speaker, as with a lot of the above listed speakers. one thing I am on amirm's side is that with the first review sample of Erin, it have a peaking/shelving high, and after the original review was out, there's a modified one which fixed the issue. I am not sure was the original sample really a defective one or it originally intended to have that "detailed showroom sound" for most reviewers, only when Erin found with the Klippel the "could be better HF shelve". Alan is no doubt a great guy in ability to make great speakers, but in this sense with the cost I would personally keep myself watching for more user measurements in the end to really pull the trigger myself
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Erin's review for the March Audio Sointuva
- Thread starter abdo123
- Start date
No, this is expensive. And a lot worst measurements.
Wilson Audio TuneTot Review (high-end bookshelf speaker)
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Wilson Audio TuneTot stand-mount/bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs around US $10,000 (varies due to color). I am not a fan of the way the front looks without the grill. The sides though sport probably the best...
www.audiosciencereview.com
The Sointuva it pretty small, it goes deep and loud as hell for something of it's size, and it's available in so many different finishes you're sure to find something you'll like.
If that's what you're looking for then I can't call it a bad deal.
If that's what you're looking for then I can't call it a bad deal.
mrmojo2022
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2022
- Messages
- 159
- Likes
- 92
But what is the relevance of small 2 way or passive? Are you placing value on the size and number of drivers or on the actual performance?
The traditional view is bigger is better. So whenever something that rewrites the rules, and it takes time for people to get their head around it.
People feel much better paying $4000 for a very large speaker/subwoofers
People would feel better paying $400 for a small bookshelf speaker.
Myself, when designing speakers, I feel better paying $400 for a large drive unit eg. 10-15” woofer, than a small drive unit eg. tweeter.
People feel much better paying $4000 for a very large speaker/subwoofers
People would feel better paying $400 for a small bookshelf speaker.
Myself, when designing speakers, I feel better paying $400 for a large drive unit eg. 10-15” woofer, than a small drive unit eg. tweeter.
Last edited:
Holmz
Major Contributor
Where are you at @mrmojo2022 ?
I have heard these speakers twice myself.
They have a quietness, which I relate to low distortion (But I am not 100% sure that is it.).
I usually like a speaker that does not sound loud, in spite of the SPL meter indicating it is.
I also historically have tended to like speakers with a narrower dispersion, as they get less interaction with the room. But I did hear a set of other speakers about 4 weeks ago that threw a super wide sound stage… Maybe that was from a wider dispersion.
I have heard these speakers twice myself.
They have a quietness, which I relate to low distortion (But I am not 100% sure that is it.).
I usually like a speaker that does not sound loud, in spite of the SPL meter indicating it is.
I also historically have tended to like speakers with a narrower dispersion, as they get less interaction with the room. But I did hear a set of other speakers about 4 weeks ago that threw a super wide sound stage… Maybe that was from a wider dispersion.
Last edited:
HooStat
Addicted to Fun and Learning
What is interesting about this is that it is a "two-way" speaker, but it uses 4 "drivers" (i.e., counting the 2 passive radiators) to accomplish the task. So, it is a highly engineered approach to address the limitations of a single driver covering everything below the tweeter. Its purpose is to be a small passive speaker that plays deep and loud. If that isn't what you want, it is a poor value proposition. If it is what you want, then I think it would be hard to find a better option.
Can you explain which rules you think have been rewritten?
This speaker may be capable of decent bass output in a smaller room, but it is not close to challenging a JBL 708P in that respect. Not to mention that the JBL is an active design at a comparable price. For that matter, gather you are nit suggesting it can keep up with the much larger Salk BePure 2?
Better performance in 1/2 to 2/3cu foot interior volume. You have to be a speaker designer to understand this. (You do)
The value proposition depends on where you’re living. Here in Australia the 708p is 10,000 AUD a pair (UD$ 7,500), almost twice the Sointuva.
Frankly I don’t think the midrange resonance of the 708p is good enough to be SOTA; but it probably sounds less annoying than it looks.
The Bepure2 is a bigger speaker; and 50% more expensive. It’s definitely plays louder/cleaner than Sointuva. It comes in all manner of finishes too, and costs a small fortune to ship and a long wait to order. Don’t ask me how I know…
The ASR DIY Directiva is a clearly a leader too. Except it needs a miniDSP and double the amplifier channels. (Or have you designed the passive XO, I haven’t kept up to date)
I also think THAT is a new standard for a speaker that size (1/2cu ft). But you have to build and finish it yourself. (You did- nice design!)
The value proposition depends on where you’re living. Here in Australia the 708p is 10,000 AUD a pair (UD$ 7,500), almost twice the Sointuva.
Frankly I don’t think the midrange resonance of the 708p is good enough to be SOTA; but it probably sounds less annoying than it looks.
The Bepure2 is a bigger speaker; and 50% more expensive. It’s definitely plays louder/cleaner than Sointuva. It comes in all manner of finishes too, and costs a small fortune to ship and a long wait to order. Don’t ask me how I know…
The ASR DIY Directiva is a clearly a leader too. Except it needs a miniDSP and double the amplifier channels. (Or have you designed the passive XO, I haven’t kept up to date)
I also think THAT is a new standard for a speaker that size (1/2cu ft). But you have to build and finish it yourself. (You did- nice design!)
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification. Yes clearly the value prop rules are different regionally. Nevertheless, if we talk purely performance, the Sointuva cannot keep up with bigger speakers.
I do not consider Directiva to be competition as it is not commercially available, but it does provide some unique insights on the Sointuva. Notably, Sointuva uses some of the more expensive drivers currently available. As this is a design choice, along with a nice cabinet, it does create price pressure that could have been avoided. As an early adopter of the Purifi and the SB tweeter, this drives the cost higher. The Salk is very comparable tech, but the larger cabinet is driving the cost. Being a more established player, he can command more price too.
Time will tell as more competitors start to incorporate the Purifi woofer. Would expect Bruno might utilize at some point? The lower IMD is an advancement, but there are other high excursion woofers that can put out comparable bass in a small box at a much lower price. So do not consider the Purifi to be groundbreaking in that respect.
Last edited:
What you buy is highly relative no matter the isolated quality of it. A small wooden box is simple and cheap to make, a huge compromise as a foundation for exceptional sound quality and cheap to develop and optimize compared to larger and more complex speakers.
As a two-way you make sacrifices that are difficult to overcome because good driver properties for a woofer is contradictory to good properties for the midrange, you lose capacity/increase IMD and Doppler distortion and force yourself to sacrifice dispersion up high because you need a larger tweeter able to cross low enough.
A two-way speaker is a big compromise to start with and making it small is not really helping in that regard.
Making it passive is another compromise because you lose potential performance and the ability to protect the speaker from being overdriven.
I always see performance/quality and value as relative, not absolute. It's a stellar performer, looks nice and is equipped with some of the best parts available. But it's a small two-way that requires external stuff to work, so the performance to value ratio alone is not enough to justify the prize in my eyes.
Other factors would be necessary to consider for me to justify these things, things like design, size-restrictions, avoidance of active speakers etc.
Which is why I said the value is a purely subjective concern since the performance is stellar. Hope this clears up my standpoint.
VS
Even the Perlisten does quite well, better below 50Hz.
Purify is good, but not magic.
Keep in mind the compression tests interact with the frequency response. So in the 102dB test the Perlisten is actually playing ~94dB @ 50hz and the Sointuva is playing ~99dB.
This is not clear from the graphs but it's what causes the little loops where it seems a speaker has less compression at a lower frequency than a higher one somehow, like in the 8331A's 86 and 96dB lines.
That is a valid point and explains why the Perlisten does well below 50Hz. It doesn’t go very deep.
Many speakers have these. Mostly this is interaction with the reflex port, but can also be due to the amplifier limiting (in active systems)
Sure, I never said it does badly. My point is that it’s not a magic system. Laws of physics still apply
one can bend them a fair bit with technology. Purify does that very well.Well, the data shows a perfect passive speaker. This is for sure 'good enough' in an engineering sense; namely no reason to do better.
So a tiny bit of criticism only to honor the designer may be in order:
- the super-soft edged box isn't exactly pleasing to the eye
- speaker protection is missing, in case of children in the household, badly
- esoteric tweeter choice; it is beryllium, but what for?
- the bass won't do as much as one might expect
- the passive drones on the back better go one on each side because of rocking
The Purify driver needs that special suspension. It is key. Very high excursion capabilities are available since decades, Adire Audio's XBL^2 motor, only later JBL's dual drive (or so). But the suspension, especially at resonance (~600Hz) throws in metric tons of intermodulation. It renders an otherwise perfect design useless. Even sharp filters as low as 200Hz will not tame it sufficiantly. It will easily copy through and muddle the mids. The 'ugly' suspension makes the Purify.
I argue that the Doppler distortion may become an issue. I admit that with headphones the claims of Purify are agreeable. But with speakers in a reflective room--so far my anecdotal experiment, the phase correlation that separates Doppler from Amplitude Modulation is destroyed. I personally don't find any difference between the two in regards to speakers in a reflective room.
That said, a +/-3mm of excursion is the most one might plan for, if the bass is used for midrange too. Because of this I go for four-way even with a 7" bass ...
Hmm...
everything you wrote made sense to me, except for the last paragraph
Have you seen the comparative tests on Hificompass?
It's what the Purifi 6.5TT-X can do, from 50Hz to 2000Hz, at 9mm excursion, that others 6.5" can only manage at at 4.5mm, is precisely what makes it phenomenal.
Which means a speaker with a single Purifi 6.5TT-X can do, what other speaker can accomplish with 2, 3 or 4 6.5” mid-woofers or 8" midwoofers (in twice as large a box ) that makes it ground-breaking.
(Revel F226Be 2x6.5" woofers ; Kii Three has 4 6.5” woofers… I don’t drag up the compression charts- you can see them at Erin’s website yourself.
If you're going to use it as a pure midrange, of course why bother with 9mm x-max.
Use the pure midrange version PTT6.5M (Comes in 8 and 4 ohm varieties)
If you want higher dispersion choose the 5.25" or 4" version versions.
If you want a 6.5" midbass that can go deep but want a bit more sensitivity, choose the W version.
Anway, I think i'm going to exit this discussion.
I believe the price or the funky surround has scared people off.
For people who already understand/see how much a phenom of a driver this 6.5PTT is, and how much of a breakthrough it is, well, there's no point- they are speaker designers (I'm preaching to the converted)
Last edited:
Sure, HifiCompass confirms Your point. Purify, given the same amount of Doppler and AM combined, allows for double the excursion. The distortion still reaches about 5% or so @9mm, summed over all the spectral lines. Again, if distortion shall be lower than 1%, the Purify would allow for an unbelievable +/-6mm, while a comparable SB Acoustics is limited to +/-3mm. In short, the Purify saves a second driver, and with it the required additional volume.
But, the test is performed with 30Hz/255Hz. If my recollection doesn't trick me, the Doppler is proportional to the frequency spread. In consequence the test with 30/255 doesn't fully represent the performance for a combination of, say 30..60Hz / 1200Hz. Let alone the critical range of a possibly still resonant suspension/surround.
Erin has a test of the raw drivers, namely an SB Acoustics and an early Purify. That test shows IM. The Pirify performs about 10dB better than SB A/.
I would love to see IM data for finished speakers on Erin's site, and with a more reasonable threshold of, say 1%..3%.
Similar threads
